Originally Posted by janpor

It's a pervert question, but a good one...
Natives wanted independece and the Europeans granted them quikly (look to India or to DR of Congo)...
Europeans had to grant independence anyway, but when they did it quikly the new formed countries probably would need the assistance from their former 'masters'...so in short: Natives wanted independence right away, and European countries gave it because there was no other solution and because it was in their advantage...

But if I may add...the Agreements of Yaoundé (1963-64), Lomé (1975, with the former British territories, the so called ACP countries) and Cotonou (2000)
between the European Economic Community (EEC) and the former colonies did provide in some way an economic protection...
The EEC granted former colonies entrace to the European market (NOT vice-versa)...but only for crops and natural minerals...
There was criticism, because it showed Africa was reduced to only a 'resource-provider'...
In the present there was protests in the World Trade Organisation (especially from Thailand, USA, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and New-Zealand) against the fact that the European market is open for African countries but not vice-versa...
Because of this the EU came up with a new concept: the European Partnership Agreements (or the EPA's):
- Africa has to open his borders for foreign products
- African countries need to open their borders between each other, the European Commission believes it will provide economic growth (like it did in Europe)

I know there is a lot of protest coming from NGO's against the EPA's, but the European Union will not take a huge profit from opening African borders...because European products are to expensive for Africans to buy.